Angels

[juvenissun]

That sounds more like "Paradise Lost" than the Holy Bible.
You *do* know that "Lucifer" is a translation of the title "morning star", given to a mortal king, don't you? But not only that, the very same title is given to the Christ in Revelation 22:16.
Thus, the equation of Lucifer=Satan is dubious at best.
Here's what I don't quite grasp about Christianity's dualist elements, though:
Christianity is based upon the notion that God reigns supreme - that he's invested with unlimited power and authority, along with universal knowledge and insight. Now, do you want to suggest that this entity, this omnipotent and omniscient Creator, was incapable of creating a universe that wasn't teeming with corruption and mutiny? That he didn't know that Satan would rebel? And even more importantly, that he couldn't find a way of nipping the rebellion in the bud, of containing and mending the damage completely and effectively? See, even with what you wrote below, the problem remains.

He chooses not to know what you will do in the next minute.

Do you think it is a good idea? I think it is an excellent idea.

 

[Wicked Willow]

He chooses not to know what you will do in the next minute.

And how, pray tell, did you get to that realization? Certainly not via the Bible, which paints a vastly different picture.

Do you think it is a good idea? I think it is an excellent idea.

What's so excellent about it? It's not as if we were free just because God doesn't check up on us beforehand. Quite the contrary, with God it's always "either my way or the torture pit", according to the Bible. The best people can hope for is cheating their way into heaven by having God sacrifice His son in their place. And that, I think, is a very dreary and miserable picture.
If God didn't want a clockwork universe, He shouldn't expect one. As it is (per Christian cosmology), He deliberately sabotaged the clockwork, hid the results from Himself - and then exploded in furious rage every time the universe did not act like clockwork.

 

[juvenissun]

And how, pray tell, did you get to that realization? Certainly not via the Bible, which paints a vastly different picture.

What's so excellent about it? It's not as if we were free just because God doesn't check up on us beforehand. Quite the contrary, with God it's always "either my way or the torture pit", according to the Bible. The best people can hope for is cheating their way into heaven by having God sacrifice His son in their place. And that, I think, is a very dreary and miserable picture.
If God didn't want a clockwork universe, He shouldn't expect one. As it is (per Christian cosmology), He deliberately sabotaged the clockwork, hid the results from Himself - and then exploded in furious rage every time the universe did not act like clockwork.

My "realization" comes directly from the Bible. The Bible is full of stories in which human did thing against God's wish/order. But God allows it to happen, not doesn't He know the consequence.

Yes, "my way or torture pit". It is our "choice". A T/F question is not any worse than a multiple choice, or multiple answer question. Sometimes, it is a better question.

 

[Wicked Willow]

My "realization" comes directly from the Bible. The Bible is full of stories in which human did thing against God's wish/order. But God allows it to happen, not doesn't He know the consequence.

Calvinists would disagree with you on that account.

Yes, "my way or torture pit". It is our "choice". A T/F question is not any worse than a multiple choice, or multiple answer question. Sometimes, it is a better question.

Better for whom? Certainly not the ones who are thrown into the torture pit, or the ones who were taken outside of the camp and stoned to death by their friends and relations for collecting firewood on the wrong day of the week.
And certainly not for God, who appears to be so fundamentally offended by all who do not behave according to his wishes that it would have been better for him if he'd created obedient clockwork creatures.

 

[HolyWarrior77]

Calvinists would disagree with you on that account.


Better for whom? Certainly not the ones who are thrown into the torture pit, or the ones who were taken outside of the camp and stoned to death by their friends and relations for collecting firewood on the wrong day of the week.
And certainly not for God, who appears to be so fundamentally offended by all who do not behave according to his wishes that it would have been better for him if he'd created obedient clockwork creatures.

When you start looking at God as a Father instead of an 'ultimate being' you start to understand why he chooses to do what he does. Without the Mercy of the Lord, we would all be doomed. The Lord allows certain things to happen in our lives so that we draw closer to him in the end and prove our Faith. There comes a point in time where all your works shall be tested as through fire and to be revealed at the last time, but sadly many people deny the only unshakable foundation which is that of Christ.

11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

 

[awitch]

The Lord allows certain things to happen in our lives so that we draw closer to him in the end and prove our Faith.

You mean like letting you or loved one suffer so you go groveling to god?

 

[sidhe]

When you start looking at God as a Father instead of an 'ultimate being' you start to understand why he chooses to do what he does. Without the Mercy of the Lord, we would all be doomed. The Lord allows certain things to happen in our lives so that we draw closer to him in the end. There comes a point in time where all your works shall be tested as through fire and to be revealed at the last time, but sadly many people deny the only unshakable foundation which is that of Christ.

When you start looking at Babalon as a Lover instead of an 'ultimate being' you start to understand why She chooses to do what She does. Without the Mercy of the Lady, we would all be doomed. The Lady allows certain things to happen in our lives so that we draw closer to Her in the end. There comes a point in time where all your works shall be tested as through fire and to be revealed at the last time, but sadly many people deny the only unshakable foundation which is that of Tiphareth.

24. This for a time appointed. Seek not the end, I shall instruct thee in my way. But be true. Would it be hard if I were thy lover, and before thee? But I am thy lover and I am with thee

Nope, you're not unique.

 

[Wicked Willow]

When you start looking at God as a Father instead of an 'ultimate being' you start to understand why he chooses to do what he does. Without the Mercy of the Lord, we would all be doomed. The Lord allows certain things to happen in our lives so that we draw closer to him in the end and prove our Faith. There comes a point in time where all your works shall be tested as through fire and to be revealed at the last time, but sadly many people deny the only unshakable foundation which is that of Christ.

As a father-archetype, the Biblical God is more of a Freudian ogre than a benevolent parent.

But we've strayed far from the topic. I think this whole detour started with me pointing out that having an omnipotent God struggling with an adversary makes no sense whatsoever. There is no struggle for an omnipotent being. Not even a challenge. Compared to omnipotence, even an almost omnipotent being would stand no chance whatsoever, let alone a mere (arch-)angel.
Jewish thinkers were well-aware of that problem, which is why the folklore tradition of the "fallen" angels was eventually purged from Judaism, with Satan becoming a loyal angel with a troublesome task. Anything else is just incompatible with strict monotheism and a supreme deity.

 

[juvenissun]

Calvinists would disagree with you on that account.


Better for whom? Certainly not the ones who are thrown into the torture pit, or the ones who were taken outside of the camp and stoned to death by their friends and relations for collecting firewood on the wrong day of the week.
And certainly not for God, who appears to be so fundamentally offended by all who do not behave according to his wishes that it would have been better for him if he'd created obedient clockwork creatures.

Better for God. He discovers who are His truly faithfuls without making them so. I like the idea very much. If I were a king, I would choose my administration the same way, if I could. For those who don't like me? Kick them out. I don't want to see them.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Better for God. He discovers who are His truly faithfuls without making them so. I like the idea very much. If I were a king, I would choose my administration the same way, if I could. For those who don't like me? Kick them out. I don't want to see them.

Sounds like a vicious tyrant to me. Oh well, but what to expect from a king?
Anyway, to bring the discussion back on track: why do you think God has to find out, when his omniscience pretty much enables him to know what every single angel was up to since before they were even created? To use your king-analogy: it's as if you had gathered intel that pinpoints a certain liege as a traitor and rebel - and THEN appoint him minister.
And again, what's with the damage control? Instead of drowning everything in a huge flood only to realize that it didn't help in the slightest and regret it, or instead of conducting bloody human sacrifices just to salvage some from the wreckage - why not tweak Satan out of existence right on the spot? Allow him to make his choice, and then *TWIP* - no more Satan, no more damage. You don't want to see him? Well, then see to it that he doesn't spoil your creation by banishing him into nothingness.

 

[juvenissun]

Sounds like a vicious tyrant to me. Oh well, but what to expect from a king?
Anyway, to bring the discussion back on track: why do you think God has to find out, when his omniscience pretty much enables him to know what every single angel was up to since before they were even created? To use your king-analogy: it's as if you had gathered intel that pinpoints a certain liege as a traitor and rebel - and THEN appoint him minister.
And again, what's with the damage control? Instead of drowning everything in a huge flood only to realize that it didn't help in the slightest and regret it, or instead of conducting bloody human sacrifices just to salvage some from the wreckage - why not tweak Satan out of existence right on the spot? Allow him to make his choice, and then *TWIP* - no more Satan, no more damage. You don't want to see him? Well, then see to it that he doesn't spoil your creation by banishing him into nothingness.

You asked too many questions. Everyone is complicate enough. So, take it one at a time.

Angel is different form human. All angels obey God, include satan, then and now. If that is what you like to see, then you have it right from the beginning.

Human is different. Basically, human does not obey God. If you want to see an opposite case to the angel, you have it too.

So, what else you like to see?

 

[Wicked Willow]

You asked too many questions. Everyone is complicate enough. So, take it one at a time.

Angel is different form human. All angels obey God, include satan, then and now. If that is what you like to see, then you have it right from the beginning.

Human is different. Basically, human does not obey God. If you want to see an opposite case to the angel, you have it too.

So, what else you like to see?

Hm... well, this is a deviation from the thread topic, but I'll ask anyway:

According to your version of things, Man, as a rule of thumb, does not obey God. HOWEVER, God wants Man to obey, and throws murderous tantrums when he doesn't. How does that make sense? Was God incapable of creating Man the way He wanted? And if He wanted Man to disobey, why become angry?

 

[trt]

This is an interesting thread Willow. I don't have anything to contribute to it right now, but if I do I will. I'm just reading. Thanks

 

[sidhe]

For my actual take on angels:

Qabalistically, they're Emanations of the One, and honestly low on the totem pole of the hierarchy in the four worlds, sitting firmly down in Yetzirah. I'm personally a fan of Lon Milo Duquette's description of them as the "Nerds of Heaven" - the ones who do the actual designing and work, but have few ideas of their own.

 

[Iscariot]

I used to see Angels as the opposite of Animals, "balancing out" the equation. Kinda like this:

Animals: Physical Body. No Soul.
Humans: Physical Body. With soul.
Angels: No Physical Body. Soul Only.

haha, yeah. I had a wicked imagination back then. I don't believe in angels or gods at all anymore.

 

[franklin]

Back in the days when I was still a Christian, I always wondered what purpose angels could possibly have, given that an omnipotent god is hardly in need of messengers and/or intermediaries. Still, they are a fascinating phenomenon, especially given that they exist in all the Abrahamaic religions, but play slightly different roles in each of those.

So, how are angels described by your particular religion, what part do they play, and what do you make of them? Are they emanations of the One? A celestial bureaucracy? Exceptionally pious souls? Fiery snakes with wings? Creatures with free will or without?

There is no need for angels. God should be able to handle any situation, after all, He is all-powerful isn't He? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[Witchy Bee]

I used to see Angels as the opposite of Animals, "balancing out" the equation. Kinda like this:

Animals: Physical Body. No Soul.
Humans: Physical Body. With soul.
Angels: No Physical Body. Soul Only.

haha, yeah. I had a wicked imagination back then. I don't believe in angels or gods at all anymore.

Actually I think your statement makes a lot of sense. Only I believe animals do have a soul, just a different sort of soul, an undeveloped soul.

On the other end of the scale, I believe angels have a soul far more complex than our own. Being as they are pretty much only Spirit. When a human dies, their soul travels to the Spirit world until such time as they are reincarnated. I think children are able to recall some of their life before death, and as they grow older they lose that ability. People who have the rare gift of not losing that power over the years we know as "psychics". Children and infants (and some animals) are also are able to see the Spirits and angels who come to them, probably to make sure they are alright.

But of course, I do still believe all these things and I'm sorry for going on about it but it's kinda hard to explain.

 

[JudaicChristian]

If the word "Angel-s" was translated into English, it would read "messenger." Sample: Jude

1. Jude, a servant of Yahshua the Messiah, and brother of James, and to them that are sanctified by Yahwah the Father, also called and saved by Yahshua the Messiah.
2. May mercy, peace, and devotion, be multiplied to you.
3. Loved, I was eager to write to you about the salvation we share, it was nessesary for me to write to you, and encourage you to earnestly contend for the faith that was given to the saints.
4. Because you are unaware that certain men have sneeked in, who are of a ancient order to their condemnation, these ungodly men turn the grace of our God into immorality, and deny that the only God is Yahwah, or that our lord Yahshua is the Messiah.
5. I will remined you although you once knew this, how Yahwah, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that did not believe.
6. Those messengers did not keep their first estate, and they were removed from their place, and He has reserved for them everlasting chains of darkness for that great day of judgment.
7. Just like Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in the same manner, they gave themselves over to fornication, and strange flesh.
8. And they will suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, as a set example; As also along with these filthy dreamers who also defile their flesh.
9. They say evil things about dignitaries and despise their dominion, they say evil things about what they know nothing about.
10. But what they do know naturally like brute beasts; In those things they have corrupted themselves.

For DW.

 

[Wicked Willow]

Actually I think your statement makes a lot of sense. Only I believe animals do have a soul, just a different sort of soul, an undeveloped soul.

Did you know, the ancients never denied that animals had a soul. In fact, the very term "animal" connects them to the notion of the "anima" (which is a Latin translation of Gk. "psyche" (=soul), and was used in the same fashion).
They figured that the characteristic that divided us from animals wasn't the soul, but the mind - full-scale self-awareness, the ability to reason, imagine, think and communicate in complex symbols, plan ahead.

Of course, there were (and are) different takes on what the "soul" actually amounted to - was it the "life force", the animating principle? The "true, immortal self", trapped in a mortal body made of crude matter? An equally mortal outgrowth of our physical organism?

Interestingly enough, the "West" (meaning Christian cultures or at least cultures that were historically dominated by Christianity) mostly conceives of the soul as an "immaterial, immortal spirit" trapped inside our body - a notion that, curiously, smacks more than a little of the sort of spirit-matter-dualism that the Church tried to combat for centuries.

Personally, I think that our psyche is not only hugely malleable, changing permanently within certain bounds, but also pretty much mortal, as it relies on the experiences, emotions and memories contained within our nervous system. Whatever may survive our physical body bears little resemblance to our distinct personalities, although I do consider the possibility that some abstract part of us that lies above our individual consciousness may very well remain - our innermost spark of divinity, or something to that effect. A little drop in the cosmic ocean, returning to the waters until it is once more released in the spray.

 

[Witchy Bee]

Did you know, the ancients never denied that animals had a soul. In fact, the very term "animal" connects them to the notion of the "anima" (which is a Latin translation of Gk. "psyche" (=soul), and was used in the same fashion).
They figured that the characteristic that divided us from animals wasn't the soul, but the mind - full-scale self-awareness, the ability to reason, imagine, think and communicate in complex symbols, plan ahead.

Of course, there were (and are) different takes on what the "soul" actually amounted to - was it the "life force", the animating principle? The "true, immortal self", trapped in a mortal body made of crude matter? An equally mortal outgrowth of our physical organism?

Interestingly enough, the "West" (meaning Christian cultures or at least cultures that were historically dominated by Christianity) mostly conceives of the soul as an "immaterial, immortal spirit" trapped inside our body - a notion that, curiously, smacks more than a little of the sort of spirit-matter-dualism that the Church tried to combat for centuries.

Personally, I think that our psyche is not only hugely malleable, changing permanently within certain bounds, but also pretty much mortal, as it relies on the experiences, emotions and memories contained within our nervous system. Whatever may survive our physical body bears little resemblance to our distinct personalities, although I do consider the possibility that some abstract part of us that lies above our individual consciousness may very well remain - our innermost spark of divinity, or something to that effect. A little drop in the cosmic ocean, returning to the waters until it is once more released in the spray.

Oh, I didn't know that...something to think about I suppose. Very interesting.
That last part was beautiful by the way.